Campagnolo Centaur Question

[doug thomas]

I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.

If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.

Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?

Doug Thomas
Welland, Ontario

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On May 16, 5:46 am, "doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Doug Thomas
> Welland, Ontario

All Campy shifters are compatible with doubles or triples. No need to
replace them.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 7:46 am, "doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.

Wow. I guess truth is stranger than fiction. I could not even dream
up such an incompetent bike shop. I strongly advise you to never go
into that pathetic shop again. Advise everyone you know to never go
there. Organize a campaign to drive such a blight on the world out of
business. Sure glad I don't live in Canada if awful bike shops like
this are able to stay in business.


>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?

Do the math. A compact Camapgnolo Centaur comes with a 34 tooth inner
chainring. You can get a 13-29 10 speed cassette. Or a 14-28 or
13-28 9 speed cassette. 34x29 is 31 gear inches. 34x28 is 32 gear
inches. For $50 or more USA dollars you can buy a 33 tooth chainring
from TA Specialties to fit your 110 mm bcd Centaur compact. 33x29 is
30 gear inches. Not sure its really worth $50 or more to get 1" lower
gear, but it is an option.

What gearing are you currently using? Do the math and figure how low
of a gear you have now? How does it compare to the above? Can you
put on a 13-29 or 13-28 cassette instead if you are using a 12-25 or
13-26 now? Much easier and cheaper way to get a little lower gears.
How much lower of a low gear do you need? Just 1 lower gear would do
it? Or do you really want much lower gears than you currently have?

Going to a triple requires new crank, new bottom bracket (although
with the modern integrated things the BB is just part of the crank so
you get one automatically), new long cage rear derailleur, new triple
front derailleur. You can use a double front to shift a triple and a
short cage rear derailleur, but for best shifting and the ability to
use all gears, you need the triple derailleurs. Cost adds up. And of
course maybe a new bigger cassette. And always a new chain.

Going to a compact may be lower cost. New crank (with its integrated
BB?) may be all you need. Short cage rear derailleur will handle
shifting and chain wrap just fine. Double front derailleur may or may
not handle shifting just fine. Front derailleurs are really cheap so
not a big deal to get a triple or compact specific to shift the
compact crankset. And maybe new bigger cassette as above. And always
a new chain.

Shifting can be a nuisance with the compact. You may end up with the
changeover between the big and small rings exactly in the range where
you spend most of your riding time.

If you really want low gears, you have to spend the money and get a
triple. With a triple you can easily and cheaply (less than $10)
replace the standard 30 tooth 74mm bcd inner chainring with a 28 or 26
or 24 tooth and get very low gears. And because you are using quality
Campagnolo shifters, they will handle a 52-42-24 perfectly. It would
be a shame to spend the money on a compact and not have low enough
gears when you are done and spend the money again on the triple to get
the low gears you want. Or be stubborn and ruin your knees climbing
hills in the not low enough compact gears.


>
> Doug Thomas
> Welland, Ontario

 

[AlanL]

On May 16, 8:46 am, "doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Doug Thomas
> Welland, Ontario

I have a Centaur triple and it works great. I find that in my area,
with mostly gently rolling terrain, for 90%+ of my riding, I can keep
the chain on the 42 tooth middle ring, which means I only am shifting
rear cogs. I mostly use it like a double; the small ring is used very
rarely for a bailout gear. The shifting is precise; as good as any
double I've owned.

If I had a compact double, I'd be constantly going back and forth
between the chainrings to find the right gear. If I were riding in
different terrain, I might come to a different conclusion, but for my
needs, the triple is perfect.

Alan

 

[Callistus Valerius]

> > I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> > between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
> >
> > If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter
combo as
> > well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
> >
> > Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
> >
> > Doug Thomas
> > Welland, Ontario
>
> All Campy shifters are compatible with doubles or triples. No need to
> replace them.
--------
kind of went thru the same thing, but with shimano, you have to get a new
rear derraileur (long cage) if you go from a double to a triple. I don't
know enough about campy to know if you have to do that too. No experience
with compacts, but I know a couple people who wished they'd gone the triple
route, after they installed compacts. It all depends on how strong your
knees are.

 

[Lou Holtman]

doug thomas wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.

If you have Ergo's already no need foor new shifters.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?

Triple no doubt about it. Wider range, a useful middle ring and you can
use a close ratio cassette.

Lou

--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

 

[D'ohBoy]

On May 16, 10:07 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> doug thomas wrote:
> > I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> > between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> > If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> > well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> If you have Ergo's already no need foor new shifters.
>
>
>
> > Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Triple no doubt about it. Wider range, a useful middle ring and you can
> use a close ratio cassette.
>
> Lou
>
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)


Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
(on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me. But if I put
the 13 - 29 cogset on, I get a low essentially equal to a 30/26. IF
you are planning to tour or do long mountain rides or are less strong
as a climber, go for the triple. But for all other riding, I like the
compact. When you get down to it, though, I have four cassettes that
I ride: a 11 - 23, 12 - 25, 13 - 26, and a 13 -29. Leave the 13 - 26
on for almost all riding.

Essentially, the difference is whether you want to carry all your gear
ratios on your bike, or whether you want to have them in cassettes in
your parts bin.

D'ohBoy

 

[Lou Holtman]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> On May 16, 10:07 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> doug thomas wrote:
>>> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
>>> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>>> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
>>> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>> If you have Ergo's already no need foor new shifters.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>> Triple no doubt about it. Wider range, a useful middle ring and you can
>> use a close ratio cassette.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> --
>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
>
> Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
> der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
> (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.

Why settle for 'good enough'?
What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?

But if I put
> the 13 - 29 cogset on, I get a low essentially equal to a 30/26. IF
> you are planning to tour or do long mountain rides or are less strong
> as a climber, go for the triple. But for all other riding, I like the
> compact. When you get down to it, though, I have four cassettes that
> I ride: a 11 - 23, 12 - 25, 13 - 26, and a 13 -29. Leave the 13 - 26
> on for almost all riding.

With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.

>
> Essentially, the difference is whether you want to carry all your gear
> ratios on your bike, or whether you want to have them in cassettes in
> your parts bin.

That's an easy choice IMO.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

 

[D'ohBoy]

Lou wrote, in part
>
> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
> you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
> a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.
>

> Lou
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

The compact requires certain additional skills, tools and behaviors
but on the other hand, offers many benefits over the current 53/39 de
facto standard without having to go through the hassle and cost of the
conversion (fder, rder, chain, crank). And if he didn't have campy,
it would be MUCH more expensive. With the compact, all the guy has to
do is get the crank, lower his fder, shorten the chain a bit and
ride. And if you rotate two chains, and don't let them get over 2000
miles or so, skipping is not a differentiating issue between compact/
triple no matter how many cassettes you run.

And if he has a known terrain that he always rides in, one cassette
will do (13-26 is probably appropriate for all but the most
mountainous non-touring terrain).

So the compact is cheaper and easier to convert to, and with the
proper choice of cassette is as good as a triple. And one additional
cassette will fill out any desired gear range.

An easy, cheaper choice, IMO.

D'ohBoy

 

[Bill Westphal]

"Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> writes:

>> > I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
>> > between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>> >
>> > If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter
> combo as
>> > well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>> >
>> > Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>> >
>> > Doug Thomas
>> > Welland, Ontario
>>
>> All Campy shifters are compatible with doubles or triples. No need to
>> replace them.
> --------
> kind of went thru the same thing, but with shimano, you have to get a new
> rear derraileur (long cage) if you go from a double to a triple. I don't
> know enough about campy to know if you have to do that too. No experience
> with compacts, but I know a couple people who wished they'd gone the triple
> route, after they installed compacts. It all depends on how strong your
> knees are.

There were docs on the Campy site that gave details about what you
need for short vs. medium vs. long cages, but that info is either
moved or removed. Anyway, I couldn't find it just now.

But my three 53-42-30 campy triple drivetrains (Record/Chorus/Centaur)
from 04-06 all have medium cage RD. So long as I keep the big cog
less than I think it's 27, which is fine, there's no need for long,
and you don't want long unless you have to do it. With the triple you
have no need for big cogs. In fact one of the big advantages of
triple is keeping the cassette sprockets mostly consecutive,
e.g. 11-23 for less than steep mtns, 12-25 for steep mtn's when I'm
sore or in recovery, and 13-26 for cx, when you infrequently need the
11 or 12 sprockets. And you can shift to and use any gear with these
setups.

Bill Westphal

 

[Lou Holtman]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> Lou wrote, in part
>> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
>> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
>> you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
>> a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.
>>
>
>> Lou
>> --
>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
> The compact requires certain additional skills, tools and behaviors
> but on the other hand, offers many benefits over the current 53/39 de
> facto standard without having to go through the hassle and cost of the
> conversion (fder, rder, chain, crank). And if he didn't have campy,
> it would be MUCH more expensive. With the compact, all the guy has to
> do is get the crank, lower his fder, shorten the chain a bit and
> ride. And if you rotate two chains, and don't let them get over 2000
> miles or so, skipping is not a differentiating issue between compact/
> triple no matter how many cassettes you run.
>
> And if he has a known terrain that he always rides in, one cassette
> will do (13-26 is probably appropriate for all but the most
> mountainous non-touring terrain).
>
> So the compact is cheaper and easier to convert to, and with the
> proper choice of cassette is as good as a triple. And one additional
> cassette will fill out any desired gear range.
>
> An easy, cheaper choice, IMO.
>
> D'ohBoy
>
>


Aha, you want the cheapest solution. Hmm, you choose a Record CT crank
and 4 cassette's??
I have one bike with a triple and one bike with a Record Compact. I have
no problem to admit that the compact on that bike is for the looks and
the weight. Gearwise the triple wins all the time.


Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

 

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 11:33 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > On May 16, 10:07 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> doug thomas wrote:
> >>> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> >>> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
> >>> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> >>> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
> >> If you have Ergo's already no need foor new shifters.
>
> >>> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
> >> Triple no doubt about it. Wider range, a useful middle ring and you can
> >> use a close ratio cassette.
>
> >> Lou
>
> >> --
> >> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
> > Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
> > der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
> > (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.
>
> Why settle for 'good enough'?
> What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?
>
> But if I put
>
> > the 13 - 29 cogset on, I get a low essentially equal to a 30/26. IF
> > you are planning to tour or do long mountain rides or are less strong
> > as a climber, go for the triple. But for all other riding, I like the
> > compact. When you get down to it, though, I have four cassettes that
> > I ride: a 11 - 23, 12 - 25, 13 - 26, and a 13 -29. Leave the 13 - 26
> > on for almost all riding.
>
> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
> you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
> a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.


I wonder if D'oh Boy has ever figured the cost of having four 10 speed
cassettes lying around? At the normal retail price of 10 speed Veloce
cassettes, he has $300 tied up in cassettes. All to get the same
range he would get with a triple crankset.

I think Campagnolo triples come with 53-42-30 rings now. And of
course a new 24 tooth 74mm bcd ring is $5 on sale or $10 full price.
Easy and cheap way to get infrequently used low gears. Take the 13-26
cassette. 53x13=108". 30x26=31". With the 50-34 compact you need a
50x12=110" and 34x29=31". I'm sure you can cobble up a 12-29 cassette
and end up with big gaps in the gears making for awful shifting. Lets
say you have a goofy desire for taller gears and use the 12-25
cassette instead of the 13-26. 53x12=127". 30x25=32". With a
compact you need 50x11=120" and 34x29=31". I guess you could cobble
up a 11-29 cassette and end up with huge gaps in the gears making
really terrible shifting. Now lets say you spend $5 and put a 24
tooth inner ring on your triple and want super high gears too.
53x11=128". 24x23=28". With a compact you get 50x11=120" and
34x29=31".

But it is stylish to have a compact crank. No style with a triple.
Just function.


>
>
>
> > Essentially, the difference is whether you want to carry all your gear
> > ratios on your bike, or whether you want to have them in cassettes in
> > your parts bin.
>
> That's an easy choice IMO.
>
> Lou
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> On May 16, 11:33 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>> On May 16, 10:07 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> doug thomas wrote:
>>>>> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to
>>>>> decide between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a
>>>>> compact crank.
>>>>> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new
>>>>> brake/shifter combo as well? I was told this at the bike shop,
>>>>> and wanted to confirm this.
>>>> If you have Ergo's already no need foor new shifters.
>>
>>>>> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>>>> Triple no doubt about it. Wider range, a useful middle ring and
>>>> you can use a close ratio cassette.
>>
>>>> Lou
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>>
>>> Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage
>>> rear der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about
>>> 35 mph (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.
>>
>> Why settle for 'good enough'?
>> What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?
>>
>> But if I put
>>
>>> the 13 - 29 cogset on, I get a low essentially equal to a 30/26.
>>> IF you are planning to tour or do long mountain rides or are less
>>> strong as a climber, go for the triple. But for all other riding,
>>> I like the compact. When you get down to it, though, I have four
>>> cassettes that I ride: a 11 - 23, 12 - 25, 13 - 26, and a 13 -29.
>>> Leave the 13 - 26 on for almost all riding.
>>
>> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
>> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a
>> cassettes you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette
>> and still have a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.
>
>
> I wonder if D'oh Boy has ever figured the cost of having four 10 speed
> cassettes lying around? At the normal retail price of 10 speed Veloce
> cassettes, he has $300 tied up in cassettes. All to get the same
> range he would get with a triple crankset.
>
> I think Campagnolo triples come with 53-42-30 rings now. And of
> course a new 24 tooth 74mm bcd ring is $5 on sale or $10 full price.
> Easy and cheap way to get infrequently used low gears. Take the 13-26
> cassette. 53x13=108". 30x26=31". With the 50-34 compact you need a
> 50x12=110" and 34x29=31". I'm sure you can cobble up a 12-29 cassette
> and end up with big gaps in the gears making for awful shifting. Lets
> say you have a goofy desire for taller gears and use the 12-25
> cassette instead of the 13-26. 53x12=127". 30x25=32". With a
> compact you need 50x11=120" and 34x29=31". I guess you could cobble
> up a 11-29 cassette and end up with huge gaps in the gears making
> really terrible shifting. Now lets say you spend $5 and put a 24
> tooth inner ring on your triple and want super high gears too.
> 53x11=128". 24x23=28". With a compact you get 50x11=120" and
> 34x29=31".
>
> But it is stylish to have a compact crank. No style with a triple.
> Just function.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Essentially, the difference is whether you want to carry all your
>>> gear ratios on your bike, or whether you want to have them in
>>> cassettes in your parts bin.
>>
>> That's an easy choice IMO.
>>
>> Lou
>> --
>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Another way of looking at it -

If you aren't one who is slightly embarassed by having a 39 instead of a 42
or 44, and you're sincerely asking about compact versus triple, it's
probably time for the triple and some reall sissy gears.

 

[Dane Buson]

Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>
>> Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
>> der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
>> (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.
>
> Why settle for 'good enough'?

I think that's a philosophical question, but I'll take a stab. I want
to spend very little time mucking about with my commuter bike. As long
as the gearing is close enough to what I need, I'm happy. I'm not
searching for a theoretical 'perfect' setup.

> What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?

Better shifting? At least, that's been my experience.

I run a 48/36 x 11-28 [1]. That gives me about the same range as a triple
using a 52/42/30 x 12-25 [2]. A 34 lower ring would drop me to 32.5 gear
inches as my lower. Of course, if you're touring or a similar
application, the triple is eminently sensible.

[1] 34 - 116 gear inches
[2] 32 - 116 gear inches

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Stupidity is an elemental force for which no earthquake
is a match." -Karl Kraus

 

[David L. Johnson]

doug thomas wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.

Pay close attention: If you have Ergo, and the shop told you that, do
not go back to that shop.

They are trying to rip you off. Now, if you are talking about 2007
model shifters, some things have changed in the front (it is apparently
really indexed now), but anything older will shift any derailleur, over
two or three chainrings, no problem. You may have trouble with a quad,
but not a triple. Since you are talking about changing things, I would
bet your bike is at least a year old.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?

If you plan on loaded touring, definitely get a triple. Otherwise, a
compact double will be good, IMO.

You may need a longer cage rear derailleur, but that is a fraction of
the cost of the shifters. You will be told you need a new front
derailleur, but I have a super-compact front, which I use as either
double or triple depending on what I plan. This is with a mid-80's
Record derailleur.

As others have said, you can usually change to a compact double without
any other new parts, and get most of the benefit of the triple.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> But my three 53-42-30 campy triple drivetrains (Record/Chorus/Centaur)
> from 04-06 all have medium cage RD. So long as I keep the big cog
> less than I think it's 27, which is fine, there's no need for long,
> and you don't want long unless you have to do it. With the triple you
> have no need for big cogs. In fact one of the big advantages of
> triple is keeping the cassette sprockets mostly consecutive,
> e.g. 11-23 for less than steep mtns, 12-25 for steep mtn's when I'm
> sore or in recovery, and 13-26 for cx, when you infrequently need the
> 11 or 12 sprockets. And you can shift to and use any gear with these
> setups.
>
> Bill Westphal
------------
Yes, you don't need big cogs, I've never needed anything bigger than a 25.
The drawback is shifting a double is more fun, in my opinion, than the
complicated triple. It seems to me, that you shift a lot less on a double.

 

[Vee]

On May 16, 9:17 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 16, 7:46 am, "doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> > between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> > If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> > well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Wow. I guess truth is stranger than fiction. I could not even dream
> up such an incompetent bike shop. I strongly advise you to never go
> into that pathetic shop again. Advise everyone you know to never go
> there. Organize a campaign to drive such a blight on the world out of
> business. Sure glad I don't live in Canada if awful bike shops like
> this are able to stay in business.
>

Yeah, stupid shop! Never mind the fact that we have no idea what kind
of shifters he's using (i.e., the shop could be right), or that we
weren't there and have no idea what the context of that assertion
was. We here at r.b.t. know better than any shop!

Seriously, do you know what's even worse than misinformed shops? Know-
it-alls who read this group, then accompany their newbie cyclist
friends into good shops and help out. That's worse.

Venting completed... thank you, come again.

-Vee

>
> > Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Do the math. A compact Camapgnolo Centaur comes with a 34 tooth inner
> chainring. You can get a 13-29 10 speed cassette. Or a 14-28 or
> 13-28 9 speed cassette. 34x29 is 31 gear inches. 34x28 is 32 gear
> inches. For $50 or more USA dollars you can buy a 33 tooth chainring
> from TA Specialties to fit your 110 mm bcd Centaur compact. 33x29 is
> 30 gear inches. Not sure its really worth $50 or more to get 1" lower
> gear, but it is an option.
>
> What gearing are you currently using? Do the math and figure how low
> of a gear you have now? How does it compare to the above? Can you
> put on a 13-29 or 13-28 cassette instead if you are using a 12-25 or
> 13-26 now? Much easier and cheaper way to get a little lower gears.
> How much lower of a low gear do you need? Just 1 lower gear would do
> it? Or do you really want much lower gears than you currently have?
>
> Going to a triple requires new crank, new bottom bracket (although
> with the modern integrated things the BB is just part of the crank so
> you get one automatically), new long cage rear derailleur, new triple
> front derailleur. You can use a double front to shift a triple and a
> short cage rear derailleur, but for best shifting and the ability to
> use all gears, you need the triple derailleurs. Cost adds up. And of
> course maybe a new bigger cassette. And always a new chain.
>
> Going to a compact may be lower cost. New crank (with its integrated
> BB?) may be all you need. Short cage rear derailleur will handle
> shifting and chain wrap just fine. Double front derailleur may or may
> not handle shifting just fine. Front derailleurs are really cheap so
> not a big deal to get a triple or compact specific to shift the
> compact crankset. And maybe new bigger cassette as above. And always
> a new chain.
>
> Shifting can be a nuisance with the compact. You may end up with the
> changeover between the big and small rings exactly in the range where
> you spend most of your riding time.
>
> If you really want low gears, you have to spend the money and get a
> triple. With a triple you can easily and cheaply (less than $10)
> replace the standard 30 tooth 74mm bcd inner chainring with a 28 or 26
> or 24 tooth and get very low gears. And because you are using quality
> Campagnolo shifters, they will handle a 52-42-24 perfectly. It would
> be a shame to spend the money on a compact and not have low enough
> gears when you are done and spend the money again on the triple to get
> the low gears you want. Or be stubborn and ruin your knees climbing
> hills in the not low enough compact gears.
>
>
>
> > Doug Thomas
> > Welland, Ontario

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On May 16, 11:33 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > On May 16, 10:07 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> doug thomas wrote:
> >>> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> >>> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
> >>> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> >>> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
> >> If you have Ergo's already no need foor new shifters.
>
> >>> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
> >> Triple no doubt about it. Wider range, a useful middle ring and you can
> >> use a close ratio cassette.
>
> >> Lou
>
> >> --
> >> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
> > Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
> > der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
> > (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.
>
> Why settle for 'good enough'?
> What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?

Gearwise, the advantage always goes to a well-chosen triple.

Image-wise, the compact double looks more 'macho' ; that's a big part
of the appeal, IMO.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 May 2007 15:36:16 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Gearwise, the advantage always goes to a well-chosen triple.
>
>Image-wise, the compact double looks more 'macho' ; that's a big part
>of the appeal, IMO.

The nice thing about a double as opposed to a triple is that it
requires less thought -- it's binary. You just shif up or down all
the way. If you're riding in situations where you have to shift
quickly, this is nice. If you're just cruising leisurely (even fast,
but mentally leisurely) it's no real advantage.

Of course Ozark has some sort of insecurities where he often has to
claim other people do things for "image" reasons.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Dane Buson]

Vee <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 16, 9:17 am, "[email protected]"
>>
>> Wow. I guess truth is stranger than fiction. I could not even dream
>> up such an incompetent bike shop. I strongly advise you to never go
>> into that pathetic shop again. Advise everyone you know to never go
>> there. Organize a campaign to drive such a blight on the world out of
>> business. Sure glad I don't live in Canada if awful bike shops like
>> this are able to stay in business.
>
> Yeah, stupid shop! Never mind the fact that we have no idea what kind
> of shifters he's using (i.e., the shop could be right), or that we
> weren't there and have no idea what the context of that assertion
> was. We here at r.b.t. know better than any shop!

I read it on the interblag, it must be true!

> Seriously, do you know what's even worse than misinformed shops? Know-
> it-alls who read this group, then accompany their newbie cyclist
> friends into good shops and help out. That's worse.

I don't think this phenomenon is limited to bike shops. It's one of the
perils of working retail I imagine.

> Venting completed... thank you, come again.

S'okay. I'll elide the counter-rant about being the poor customer stuck
with a crappy bike shop with clueless staff. Thankfully I live in
Seattle and have a good selection. I still do just about everything
myself since I'm cheap and impatient.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
There is a remedy for everything;
it is called death.
--Portuguese Proverb